Fundraisers Rate Their CEOs
Awhile back we reported on the now-infamous Underdeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising.
One aspect of the study that drew attention was the somewhat lukewarm assessment by nonprofit CEOs of their development directors — 33% were dissatisfied or lukewarm about the performance of their development directors … and 24% said their development directors have no experience or are novices at ”current and prospective donor research”.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, we offered our fundraiser readers a chance to bite back. And they did!
According to our Agitator survey, only 22% of respondents would “nominate your CEO for The Agitator’s BEST CEO Award” (50% said No, and 29% ticked “are you guys nuts”).
More seriously we asked: “Rate your CEO’s understanding of and commitment to effective fundraising. He or she is …”
- A superstar — 16%
- Gets the basics, but not a leader in this area — 38%
- Pretty hands-off — 23%
- More of a hindrance than a help — 23%
Almost half (49%) would replace their CEO if they had the chance!
Asked which statement best described fundraising planning ‘at the top’ in their organizations, fundraisers said …
- Program goals are discussed with fundraising an integral part of the discussion — 26%
- “Tell us how much you can raise” — 17%
- “Here’s what we need … go raise it” — 58%
Asked about support from the top, 37% said fundraising support from their CEO and Board was “lacking” … 20% said “they’re clueless”.
And what about appreciation from the top? 40% said their CEO treats them “like an occasional visiting relative” … 24% “like the gardener”.
Whoa!
These are comments from fairly seasoned fundraisers — almost half (47%) in the biz more than ten years; 71% over five years. Working in good-sized nonprofits — 27% with $1-5 million in private contributions; 30% with over $5 million.
It sure seems like both sides of the table are less than blissfully happy with the other. Not a healthy situation. What’s the problem? Too much pressure on everyone these days? Cultural incompatibility? Inconsistent agendas? Just a ‘failure to communicate’?
Does your nonprofit need the fundraising equivalent of a marriage counselor?
Tom
P.S. While we included some cheeky questions, our respondents seemed to focus seriously on question of leadership effectiveness in terms of fundraising. Many offered ‘verbatim’ comments on how CEOs might be better evaluated in that regard. We’ll share some of those suggestions later this week.
2 responses to “Fundraisers Rate Their CEOs”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Wow! No comments. Weird.
I think the model of nonprofits doesn’t make sense. Volunteers with no fund development, nonprofit management experience, or skin in the game managing an organization (oftentimes at frustratingly micro levels), hiring CEOs who don’t have development background, telling nonprofits that they need to run like a business (You mean like we don’t provide service to those who can’t pay?). CEOs hiring development people who they’ve secured a the rainmaker, and will do it “over there” or else the development professional loses her/his job. Funders who won’t invest in the basic infrastructure to support fund development and other overhead costs. You know the problems. It isn’t just a development problem, it is a structure problem, in my humble opinion.
I actually told my CEO just that….you don’t need a fundraiser, you need a marriage counselor! (We have an odd relationship with a “parent-nonprofit” who is not really a parent-nonprofit, except when they want to tell us what to do.)
These results do not surprise me at all. I think for the most part, we are not seen as development specialists, but as “money getters”. And that will not bode well for the future of any of our causes.